Houston19514

... and speaking of spin . . .

Surprised nobody has posted this highly relevant Nancy Sarnoff article about the Houston apartment market: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/busine...ff/4658086.html In short, she says that "vacancy rates are expected to decline in 2007." She further says that "This year, about 5,300 units will be built, down from 6,300 in 2006."

Sorry, Didn't miss any of your "points." Nor did I miss your missstatements or your introduction of subject matter that could hardly be less relevant. I think you may have missed the point from the very beginning. You seem to be talking about how the world views Chicago (and Houston) and how "important" each is on the "world stage," so to speak. I've been talking about how much each city is dominated (or not) by world trade, activity, and people. Go back and read my posts. And pay attention this time.

It's a square park ;-) It's part of the City of Houston PARKS department. They seem to think it is a PARK: "The PARK at Market Square is a sylvan oasis near the busy Harris County Courthouse complex and the Theater District." Market Square

It should not really take THAT long. The lien holders at some point will surely just foreclose on the property and get what they can out of it. Once they do that, it will be free of the liens and we can all get on with our lives ;-)

They need to start from scratch and do a total redesign. They current design practically screams "keep out!! You may walk on the path/tunnels around and through, but this grass is just here to look at; don't even think about climbing up on to it." Something like DuPont Circle would be good there. A large fountain in the middle, surrounded by paths, benches, chess tables, trees, some open lawn space. Then patrol it so it's safe and clean (ie. enforce the pooper scooper laws).

I don't recall every seeing a rendering of that proposal. Not certain it ever got to the "rendering" stage.

Wow. I did notice, though, that all of those listings are on floors 20 and up, so they would be significantly more expensive per square foot than those on floors 19 and below.

Where'd you get that price range? I thought they were closer to 275-350 psf price range

Great point, H-town... Not to mention the crosses adorning the roof

So if I may summarize Niche and H-Town Man's arguments in favor of the proposition that Chicago is a more international city than Houston, it comes down to... Because "everyone knows" Chicago is more international. No need to consider any facts or evidence to the contrary.

GlobeSt.com has news this afternoon of a company taking a 40,000 square foot lease of the top two floors of Heritage Plaza. The company is moving downtown from the uptown area. The lease takes Heritage Plaza to 77% occupancy. The article went on to say that Heritage Plaza is just completing renovations and did not start seriously marketing their space until renovations were done.

Looks great! Thanks Red.

58% more international passengers from a metropolitan area that has 78% more people. Hmmmm... that suggest to me that perhaps a greater percentage of Houston's business is in fact of an international nature than is true in Chicago... especially when one considers that Chicago probably gets a lot more international tourist traffic than does Houston. And every globalization expert that anyone has posted here has used similar flawed analysis as I have explained earlier. Even the book you posted, while I have not had a chance to acquire it or read it, appears to have started from the assumption that only New York, LA and Chicago are global cities and then proceeds to analyze those three cities, without even considering the possibility that other cities might be just as "global" in nature. As to "facilitating the movement of people and information"... Houston is quite-well equipped and doing quite a good job in that area. See the discussion above of international airline traffic relative to population size. See also, the recent additions to international air service at IAH many more expected to come in the next few years. See also, the rate of growth of international traffic at IAH in the range of 7-10% per year vs. 2-3% per year at Chicago. Niche has failed to address the crux of my question regarding the various globalization "studies", perhaps I'll have better luck with you: How are accounting, finance, advertising and law firms (which the posted studies focused on exclusively) more indicative of global connection than say, how many companies are based in your town and how many employees do they have in foreign countries? Or how many engineers and geologists do you have in your town who work primarily on foreign projects? Or how about the number of foreign-flagged ships that docked at your port during a year?? If not number of foreign flag ships , then how about number of people employed in exporting and importing services? How about the number of foreign patients who seek medical treatment in your town in a given year? All of those are ignored by the posted "studies" of globalization. I am not drinking any Kool-Aid; I am merely insisting, as always, that we look at the facts (and that we view any expert "studies" with a critical eye). When one looks at the facts, (e.g., that Houston has higher per capita international air traffic, is more diverse, has more foreign consulates than Chicago, not to mention the obvious fact of the Port) one finds that there is plenty of reason to suspect that there is at least a possibility that the conventional wisdom that Chicago is a more international city than Houston may no longer be true. In fact, it seems quite likely that a higher percentage of people in Houston are dealing in international matters on any given day than is true in Chicago; if so, that would also seem to suggest that Houston might indeed be more international, in spite of what one feels on the streets of Chicago, or is told by so-called "globalization" experts.

And somehow in your mind the same does not apply to IAH or the Port of Houston. Sheesh, you stepped all over your argument with that one. LOL

Pretty weak, man. Especially when you consider that O'Hare, even more than IAH, is also a waypoint for people on their way to their final destinations, just as is the Port of Houston with regard to the goods. You are ignoring the fact that it is in the port city that the business of dealing with the international shippers exists, in addition to being the place where the international ships actually dock and their crews debark. Wherever the individual containers go (and, by the way, the bulk of Houston's port traffic is NOT containerized), that ship is sailing to and from Houston. The port city is where the bulk of the export/import infrastructure (including the people) exist and work and have "connections" with foreign people and companies. The port is no doubt a good part of the reason Houston has the third largest number of foreign consulate offices. Employing your logic, every burg and hamlet is just as global and globally-connected as every other, because they all have Wal-Marts. Ridiculous, of course.

(1) Again, you are slipping into which city is in a better position to compete long term in the global economy. You may be right that it is Chicago (although I doubt it), but that has almost nothing to do with which city is currently the more "international". (2) Another example of the hazards of relying on Wikipedia: They (and apparently you) are mixing up the rankings of international passenger traffic with the rankings of number of international destinations. O'Hare is indeed No. 4 in international passengers, IAH is indeed 7th (at least it was in 2005). The numbers for international destinations were taken from the respective airport websites and I have seen these numbers duplicated elsewhere. A bit surprising, but IAH has more non-stop international destinations than does Chicago. I believe IAH actually is either no. 1 or no. 2 in the country in number of international non-stop destinations. Thanks for the link on the book. I'll take a look and see what I can find in it.

Yes, really. Peoria is not a part of Chicagoland, and I'll go out on a limb here and say that it never will be (at least not in the lifetimes of you, me, our children, and our childrens' children, and then some... ;-) Check your facts, man. They aren't considering any such thing. I presume your are thinking of the proposal to add a Chicago airport in PEOTONE.

ROFL You have got to be kidding. It is indeed risky to quote Wiki, especially when you cherry-pick one piece of nonsense that is repeatedly and clearly contradicted on the very same page. I know Chicago, and I know Moline, and I know Chicagoland. Moline is NOT in Chicagoland. And FWIW, neither are Decatur or Peoria. What nonsense. How are those services more indicative of global connection than those I listed in my earlier post? (and the study is purporting to show "global connection", not Global economic influence".) If not number of foreign flag ships (and it's hard to comprehend how that does not show global connection), then how about number of people employed in exporting and importing services?

You might have a point that Chicago is better positioned for getting new, non-energy-related companies to move there, but that does not prove that Chicago is currently a more "international" city. That just goes to prove that Chicago has a better reputation, or perhaps even that it is perceived to be more international, or has the better set of skill-sets on hand for companies looking to move. Again, none of that addresses the question of which city is more "international". The current set of companies and industries that each city has clearly does address the question of which city is more international and does not matter at all why they are here or there. I would be very interested in seeing the data in the book you referenced. Any chance of seeing any of it on-line? See my other post regarding the "study" that was linked by Trae.

I fully understand the concept of Chicagoland; it's nothing more than the colloquial name for the Chicago metro area. What I don't understand is what a map of it has to do with anything in this thread. If it was an attempt to support your earlier statement that "Moline is to Chicago what Ft. Worth is to Dallas", well, perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with a map of Illinois. Moline is nowhere near the red blotch on your map showing Chicagoland.

That study has always struck me as somewhat silly and has been cited WAY more often than it deserves to be. It merely "ranked cities based on provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, finance and law". (Those just happen to be the areas of Chicago's "expertise" if you will.) They gave points to cities based on such things as how many accounting firms based in the city have branch offices in foreign countries, and how many branch offices. Yes, those are indicative of "global connections," but it never seemed to me that those particular industries are any more indicative of "global connections" than, say, how many companies are based in your town and how many employees do they have in foreign countries? Or how many engineers and geologists do you have in your town who work primarily on foreign projects? Or how about the number of foreign-flagged ships that docked at your port during a year?

Yes, I am quite aware that "more international passengers per capita is not more international passengers", and I did not post those numbers to promote Redscares assertion that Chicago is a "strong domestic city." The numbers merely show that, if indeed Chicago is more "international" than Houston, it is not by the huge margin that some suggest. In fact, unless you are of the school of thought that says that bigger necessarily means more international, I think the higher international travel per capita indeed does provide evidence in favor of the assertion that Houston is more international than Chicago. (Personally, I'm ambivalent on the question... I think they are probably so close in their "internationality" that it would be impossible to conclusively come down on one side or the other.) Did you have a point?

Chicago gives you non-stop access to "more than 60 international cities" according to O'Hare's website. Houston gives you non-stop access to "more than 70 international cities" (I think it's about 74-75 now). O'Hare handled 11.7 million international passengers last year. IAH handled 7.4 million international passenger last year. When you consider the population differences of the metro areas, not bad at all for Houston. In fact, Houston has more international passengers per capita than Chicago. No doubt, there is a widely-held perception that Chicago is more international; but we all know there are countless widely-held perceptions about Houston that are simply not true or seriously outdated. Further, I don't get the logic you are employing, H-Town Man, that somehow because they have to be here, the oil and gas companies don't count when we consider how "international" Houston is. The facts are what they are. The oil companies are very international in nature, and they are in Houston.

But most of the food and agriculture related companies on that list (ADM, Caterpillar, John Deere) are NOT in or near Chicago. It is very possible that Houston would have been on the list of cities to be considered (and it's conceivable we could have beaten Chicago... who knows?), had it not been ruled out by the criteria of not being near any of their operations. DFW and Denver were the other two cities that were considered, after all, and Denver is neither of them is nearly as "international" as Houston.